To avoid lapping over with Andrew, I'm just going to refer you guys
to him. It isn't some fool in a crowd. It isn't a lunatic with a monkey doll. It's our thug-life in action, pure and simple. Say it with me children--They are who we thought they were. And as they get closer to the end of a noxious chapter on our history, they show themselves to be the same cowards they were in Philadelphia in 80, with Willie Horton in 88, with hands in 90, with Sista Souljah in 92, with McCain's love-child in 2000. They are who we thought they were. And I think their time has come.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
And the media LETS THEM OFF THE HOOK!!
The question to me is whether or not people will remember any of this once the dust settles on the election and a minority makes claims of racism. We all know the answer, but still. It continues to amaze me how people do things like this and then act as if they have no idea why people are upset.
I think you owe Dennis Green a nickel or something.
The Republican party cannot be held responsible for what the Republican party is doing; how would they know what supporters happen to be up to just because those supporters are the official organ of the party?
I can't believe this was perpetuated by the Republican chair in Sacramento(!) of all places. Oy. This guy better go on vacation somewhere for awhile. The local press is going to have a field day (stay tuned)...
I wonder if Schwarzenegger will be pressed for comment.
They are who we thought they were.
Right. Republicans.
Sista Souljah? That was Bill Clinton, not a Republican.
Bill Clinton was a better Republican than Bush, by a damn sight.
They are those whom Lincoln eviscerated and dismembered in his Cooper Union speech. Even then, they tried to call themselves "conservatives."
Father Abraham taught them otherwise:
http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/08/more-great-minds-lincoln-on-conservatives.html
Are we finally going to win The Civil War?
Something that scared me to my bones back in the day, and has never left me:
In January 1993, when 48 Hours was an actual newsmagazine, they did a fascinating two-hour special about the (duh) 48-hour White House transition from Bush I to Clinton. Moving the families from/to the East Wing, packing and moving staff from the West Wing, the whole bit. (If memory serves, it aired the the night of the Inauguration; they turned around, edited, and broadcast it in less than 8 hours -- as I said, pretty cool).
They were interviewing folks who worked in the West Wing. A lot of midlevel staff were holdovers from Reagan, so they had worked at the same desk, with the same colleagues, for over a decade. Needless to say they were teary and emotional; many talked about the once-in-a-lifetime honor of working at the WH. Very few were terribly partisan.
Then they interviewed an older woman (mid/late 50's) who appeared to be an executive assistant. This is pretty verbatim:
48H: How long have you been working at the WH?
EA: Twelve years.
48H: Well, then, this must be difficult for you.
EA (smiling, friendly and deadly calm): Oh, no. It's just temporary. We'll be back in four years.
48H: Why do you say that?
Now this is where I figured her answer would be along the lines of: the Dems can't run a one-car funeral/organize a fight in an Irish bar/they'll tax and spend us into oblivion and the voters will kick them out.
This is what she said instead:
EA (friendly and deadly calm): Because the White House isn't theirs. It doesn't belong to them; it belongs to us.
The reporter, needless to say, couldn't even respond; he was stunned into silence. I felt a chill down my spine that in 15 years I have never, ever forgotten. It's the moment when I realized that this was not Eisenhower's or Reagan's or even Bush I's party anymore. My thought was: They will do anything to get him. Anything. They're fanatics.
And when the Vince Foster/Travelgate shit began to hit the fan shortly thereafter, I thought: Here we go.
What McCain's campaign is doing now is nothing compared to what the GOP will gin up after January 20th. My only comfort is that unlike Clinton, Obama will expect it and prepare accordingly.
@zacksback
But think about this: W came into the Presidency with eggs being pelted at his limo, and he'll probably go out in the same fashion. I'd like to see the video of this administration packing up and leaving...fully narrarated this time because no one gives a shit about the nostalgia. It's more like Don't let the door hit you on the ass on you're way out.
The GOP is going to have show a bit of humility for awhile before they start ginning up shit on Obama...because the public won't believe it; won't care.
"They are who we thought they were."
Who's the 'they' in this? All Republicans, the leadership, the "base," a bigoted few...
The good news is they've got 19 days left before their entire movement checks into rehab.
Who's the 'they' in this? All Republicans, the leadership, the "base," a bigoted few...
It's a Reality-Based thing, you wouldn't understand...
Or are you merely sandbagging here?
Or are you really unaware that this is the modern Republican party since Nixon? If this is the case, check out "Nixonland" at your earliest convenience. If not, I kindly suggest that you share your phony concern with the Right Wing Echo Chamber.
Ed, not really a Nixonland fan. Before The Storm, on the other hand, was a great book. But I think Perlstein's very unfair to Nixon. Nixon, I'd argue, certainly reaped the benefits of white, southern discontent with desegregation, the Voting Rights Act, etc., but in terms of his actual policy, he actually did a great deal for the civil rights cause (presided over desegregation, got affirmative action kicked off). In some sort of moral sense, was it wrong for Nixon to signal to southerners that he would set civil rights back, even though he didn't intend to do any such thing; would it have been more honorable if he had come out and said that he didn't want bigoted supporters? Sure, but I think that's a pretty high standard to hold a politician to.
I think the central failure of the McCain campaign was that he did not take the cue from the authors of GNP and instead decided to pander to the incredibly shrinking "base."
The Republican elitists see their "base" as mindless white idiots who respond to fear mongering and racial innuendo. Clearly, the potential Republican base has changed, just as the rest of the country has.
He would have done much better by taking back the Bush I states (i.e. NH, ME, the midwest)by touting himself as the centrist maverick who will not take your weekly earnings out of your wallet. Then, with Daddy Yankee in tow, he should have toured FL and the southwest, touting himself as the live free or die candidate who will be on the side of the working classes and allow them to live out their American dreams.
Instead of looking forward he is looking to the past and putting the nail in the coffin for a generation of negative, bigoted politicking.
As the GOP reflects after their massive loss in November I hope for their sake (disclosure - I'm Dem) that they see that in order to go up from here - they have to extend themselves out. The angry right can stay home because their votes are no longer worth their salt in bringing electoral victory.
Could someone please explain to me why the Willie Horton ad was racist? I just watched it again, and I honestly don't get it.
Maestro, it was and it wasn't. On the one hand, it was a totally legitimate attack. On the other hand, it certainly traded on racist fears and stereotypes. You could argue that if the ad hadn't used Horton's scary mug shot, and actually used the name he went by (William), there'd be nothing racist about it. Of course, that would've robbed the ad of a lot of its effectiveness.
Asher thinks: was it wrong for Nixon to signal to southerners that he would set civil rights back, even though he didn't intend to do any such thing; would it have been more honorable if he had come out and said that he didn't want bigoted supporters? Sure, but I think that's a pretty high standard to hold a politician to.
"More" Honorable? As if it is honorable in the first place to lie about your position and not confront the bigots.
"Pretty High Standard"? Your standards must be pretty low to begin with then, I suppose.
Some of you act as if this is your first election. As long as there have been political parties, as long as there have been candidate for high office, there has been mud slinging, some sanctioned by the candidates, some not, some never attributed to anyone. On both sides.
Thinking either side is more honorable than the other side, or that this campaign is any uglier than any other is foolish.
You can debate whether this or that ad is "racist" or whether someone is lying about someone's position, but to know if it was truly effective - like the Horton ad or Dem ads about Republicans taking away SS, you're going to have to find someone (and really lots of someones) whose mind was actually changed by these things. Other than that, you're pretty much just guessing. Fun, yes. Accurate? Doubtful.
They are low standards, Tessa. But realistic ones. For instance, you may think that it would be nice if Obama won the election. Now, there are a lot of stupid ex-factory workers out there who wish that factory jobs could just stay in America forever, and think that politicians can somehow bring the jobs back from China without totally fucking our economy over by making everything far more expensive. Obama, of course, knows better; see the Goolsbee goes to Canada flap. But it would be stupid - political malpractice, really - for him to not pretend he's against trade and not run misleading ads attacking McCain for shipping jobs overseas. If he told the truth about his position and economic realities, he could very well lose the election and his opportunity to do whatever good he's capable of doing. Similarly, only a hopeless idealist wouldn't have attempted to profit off of southern discontents in 1968.
Mat,
This is hardly my first election but I reject your suggestion equivalency.
Just because I'm not a virgin doesn't mean I can't judge a bi-sexual pederast necrophiliac who's into bestiality as being a bit contemptible than me. The fact that bi-pedanecrobunnyhumpers have been around longer than lung fish doesn't require any indulgences on my part. I may cringe at some of Obama's spots and rationalize, but there are some doors I just won't open and if Obama does I won't follow.
"Peorgie Tirebiter" said:
Just because I'm not a virgin doesn't mean I can't judge a bi-sexual pederast necrophiliac who's into bestiality as being a bit contemptible than me.
Ah, but is he a spy and girl-delighter or just a student like you and me?
Asher, I totally understand there is necessity to evangelize the party platform to win the nomination, and to lie about policy issues to avoid political suicide, and ruin the opportunity to serve (what you see as) the greater good. But there's still room for integrity. There are moments in history when integrity matters. There are issues that require integrity aboslutely, and when lying can cause irreparable damage. Otherwise the lies are entirely self-serving. Condoning hatred and bigotry leads to more hatred and bigotry. It's not something you can pivot off of and still benefit the greater good. The wake of hatred you left behind is still following. It's not something you can take back. Don't you see that?
What the hell is "hands in 90"?
Anyone?
Nate -
It was the Jessie Helms senate ad vs Harvey Gantt. Helm's had a voiceover complaining that the fictional person in the ad lost their job to a minority because of quotas while showing a pair of white hands crumpling up a piece of paper. Oh, by the way, Gantt was black.
They expect that calling us to 'torture thy neighbour' will win them votes?
That sign is nothing more than conspiracy to incite violence and whoever was behind it should be prosecuted.
This is very different from a normal lost election. The Republican party is coming apart at the seams right now. The way the leadership seems more and more out of touch with reality, the scary out-of-control feel of the rallies, the way lifelong party faithful and hacks are defecting, this all looks like what happened to the old communist governments when the Berlin Wall fell. When Bush lost the election to Clinton, it didn't have this feel. Nor when Dole lost, nor when Carter or Kerry lost.
I don't think anyone knows what the center-right party in the US will be in ten years. I'm sure it will still be called the Republican party, and I expect it will contain many of the same people. But it won't be the same thing we have now. Its policies will likely be quite different.
This is going to be very interesting to watch.
Remember how a lot of black people were skeptical of Obama's chances because, America, they thought, was still too racist? Well, a lot of racist whites felt exactly the same way. Now that the abstraction of a black president is drawing close to a reality those elements are panicking and becoming frustrated and angry. Its only going to get worse from now until the election. This is a dangerous time. I really do worry that one of them is going to try and take a shot at Obama.